SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Supreme Court Takes On Gay Marriage
Will courts ride wave of support following November's election results?
Dec 07, 2012
Friday afternoon the Supreme Court announced that they will take on same sex marriage by weighing in on two cases that challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.
One of the cases the justices elected to oversee, Hollingsworth v. Perry, was a decision by the California 9th Circuit Court that challenged the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8.
The case deals specifically with the right of same-sex couples to marry. Had the court elected not to hear the case, it would have left the lower court's ruling intact, allowing same-sex marriages to resume in California. However, according to the New York Times, the case has sweeping potential to "establish a right to same-sex marriage, effectively striking down the bans on such marriages in 39 states."
The second case the Supreme Court will rule on is challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In Windsor v. United States, the plaintiff was not able to claim an estate tax marital deduction after her spouse's death. The ruling specifically challenged Section 3 of the law which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman for purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs.
Activists responded to Friday's announcement with cautious optimism. Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, released a statement following the news:
By agreeing to hear a case against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, the Court can now move swiftly to affirm what 10 federal rulings have already said: DOMA's 'gay exception' to how the federal government treats married couples violates the Constitution and must fall. When it comes to the whole federal safety net that accompanies marriage - access to Social Security survivorship, health coverage, family leave, fair tax treatment, family immigration, and over 1000 other protections and responsibilities -- couples who are legally married in the states should be treated by the federal government as what they are: married.
Additionally, gay and lesbian couples in California - and indeed, all over the country - now look to the Supreme Court to affirm that the Constitution does not permit states to strip something as important as the freedom to marry away from one group of Americans.
The court's intervention comes just one month after residents of three states--Maine, Maryland and Washington--voted to approve gay marriages, bringing the total to nine states having legalized same-sex marriages.
But the According to the SCOTUS Blog, the court will also decide whether parties have "standing" to bring either same sex marriage case, allowing the a potential 'way out,' writes the Los Angeles Times.
Arguments are expected to be heard around Mar 25-27 with decision around June 27.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
Friday afternoon the Supreme Court announced that they will take on same sex marriage by weighing in on two cases that challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.
One of the cases the justices elected to oversee, Hollingsworth v. Perry, was a decision by the California 9th Circuit Court that challenged the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8.
The case deals specifically with the right of same-sex couples to marry. Had the court elected not to hear the case, it would have left the lower court's ruling intact, allowing same-sex marriages to resume in California. However, according to the New York Times, the case has sweeping potential to "establish a right to same-sex marriage, effectively striking down the bans on such marriages in 39 states."
The second case the Supreme Court will rule on is challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In Windsor v. United States, the plaintiff was not able to claim an estate tax marital deduction after her spouse's death. The ruling specifically challenged Section 3 of the law which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman for purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs.
Activists responded to Friday's announcement with cautious optimism. Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, released a statement following the news:
By agreeing to hear a case against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, the Court can now move swiftly to affirm what 10 federal rulings have already said: DOMA's 'gay exception' to how the federal government treats married couples violates the Constitution and must fall. When it comes to the whole federal safety net that accompanies marriage - access to Social Security survivorship, health coverage, family leave, fair tax treatment, family immigration, and over 1000 other protections and responsibilities -- couples who are legally married in the states should be treated by the federal government as what they are: married.
Additionally, gay and lesbian couples in California - and indeed, all over the country - now look to the Supreme Court to affirm that the Constitution does not permit states to strip something as important as the freedom to marry away from one group of Americans.
The court's intervention comes just one month after residents of three states--Maine, Maryland and Washington--voted to approve gay marriages, bringing the total to nine states having legalized same-sex marriages.
But the According to the SCOTUS Blog, the court will also decide whether parties have "standing" to bring either same sex marriage case, allowing the a potential 'way out,' writes the Los Angeles Times.
Arguments are expected to be heard around Mar 25-27 with decision around June 27.
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
Friday afternoon the Supreme Court announced that they will take on same sex marriage by weighing in on two cases that challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.
One of the cases the justices elected to oversee, Hollingsworth v. Perry, was a decision by the California 9th Circuit Court that challenged the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban, Proposition 8.
The case deals specifically with the right of same-sex couples to marry. Had the court elected not to hear the case, it would have left the lower court's ruling intact, allowing same-sex marriages to resume in California. However, according to the New York Times, the case has sweeping potential to "establish a right to same-sex marriage, effectively striking down the bans on such marriages in 39 states."
The second case the Supreme Court will rule on is challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). In Windsor v. United States, the plaintiff was not able to claim an estate tax marital deduction after her spouse's death. The ruling specifically challenged Section 3 of the law which defines marriage as only between a man and a woman for purposes of more than 1,000 federal laws and programs.
Activists responded to Friday's announcement with cautious optimism. Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, released a statement following the news:
By agreeing to hear a case against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, the Court can now move swiftly to affirm what 10 federal rulings have already said: DOMA's 'gay exception' to how the federal government treats married couples violates the Constitution and must fall. When it comes to the whole federal safety net that accompanies marriage - access to Social Security survivorship, health coverage, family leave, fair tax treatment, family immigration, and over 1000 other protections and responsibilities -- couples who are legally married in the states should be treated by the federal government as what they are: married.
Additionally, gay and lesbian couples in California - and indeed, all over the country - now look to the Supreme Court to affirm that the Constitution does not permit states to strip something as important as the freedom to marry away from one group of Americans.
The court's intervention comes just one month after residents of three states--Maine, Maryland and Washington--voted to approve gay marriages, bringing the total to nine states having legalized same-sex marriages.
But the According to the SCOTUS Blog, the court will also decide whether parties have "standing" to bring either same sex marriage case, allowing the a potential 'way out,' writes the Los Angeles Times.
Arguments are expected to be heard around Mar 25-27 with decision around June 27.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.